Jayden Gambrah v The Director of HMP Thameside

A detaining authority must establish lawful authority for continued detention. Administrative or pre-release checks do not themselves justify detention after a prisoner is entitled to release. Such checks must be completed before the hearing or speedily afterwards, and must not cause detention overnight or over a weekend. A prison must respond substantively and urgently when a solicitor raises a credible concern about unlawful detention. Court orders concerning detention must be complied with strictly. These obligations apply equally to privately operated prisons and to public prisons. A contractual staffing arrangement cannot excuse non-compliance with the principles governing false imprisonment and habeas corpus.

The claimant was sentenced to a 24-month Detention and Training Order at Inner London Crown Court on 20 February 2026, with credit for time served and tagged bail. He was therefore entitled to immediate release but remained detained at HMP Thameside until 26 February 2026.

His solicitors repeatedly contacted the prison and the court, explaining that the detention was unlawful and seeking urgent release. The prison delayed release while checking whether an adult prison could release a person sentenced to a Detention and Training Order, failed to respond substantively to the communications, and failed to comply promptly with an order requiring an explanation of the detention. The habeas corpus claim was resolved by consent, including damages of £5,000 and costs of £5,500. The court nevertheless gave judgment on the legality of the detention and the prison’s systems and response.

The claim was compromised by consent. The court nevertheless concluded that the evidence disclosed a series of serious failings and stated that, had it been necessary to decide the issues formally, it would have found the Defendant liable for false imprisonment.

1. Lawful authority and release checks. No person, including an employee of a private prison, may detain another without lawful authority. Once detention is shown, the detaining authority must establish the authority for it. Internal checks concerning release arrangements are not an independent lawful ground for detention. They should be completed before the prisoner is taken to court, or through systems permitting completion within a short time after the hearing. Detention overnight or over a weekend for that purpose is impermissible.
2. Application to the sentence. The uncertainty concerning the Detention and Training Order could have been resolved promptly. Section 29 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 permits such an order where the defendant turns 18 during the proceedings. Continued detention for almost six days while the issue was checked was unlawful.
3. Urgent communications. A solicitor’s complaint that a prisoner is being unlawfully detained requires a substantive and urgent response. The Defendant’s failure to answer repeated communications, escalate the issue, or provide an effective emergency route reflected the concerns identified in Niagui v The Governor of HMP Wandsworth, [2022] EWHC 2911 (Admin), Kim v The Governor of HMP Wandsworth, [2024] EWHC 645 (Admin), and Bashir v The Governor of HMP Pentonville, [2025] EWHC 101 (Admin).
4. Court orders and private prisons. Orders requiring an explanation for detention must be treated with particular seriousness and complied with strictly. Serco, as a private prison operator, was in the same position as HMPPS: both were detaining authorities bound by the same obligations. Contractual staffing arrangements could not justify non-compliance.
5. The court considered that indemnity costs would have been appropriate, applying the reasoning in Kim, because of the serious failures in processing release and complying with the court’s order. The prison’s subsequent procedural commitments were recorded for future reference.